I first posted the commentary piece below back in August of 2008. I decided to repost it because today, with gas prices once again hovering around $4 a gallon, we have the utterly predictable "Inquisition" on Capitol Hill, with political hacks attacking oil company executives for basically doing what they are supposed to be doing - producing petroleum products.

These professional political pirates can try as they might to demonize petroleum companies, but the reality is that Big Oil contributes far more to my standard of living, and that of every other American, than all of the blowhards in the Congress put together.


Why I Love "Big Oil"

Big Oil is my friend. Thanks to those wonderful American oil companies, I can jump into my own vehicle and go where I want, when I want.  I live in Minneapolis. My youngest son lives in Chicago. If I decide to drive down to see him on the spur of the moment, I can, and I will be assured that I will have the fuel necessary to get there and back.

Now, since gas hit nearly $4 a gallon, have I altered my driving habits a bit to make better use of the fuel that I buy? Sure. Have I canceled a trip here and there, or combined several errands into one? Of course. But the important thing is that I get to decide for myself if the increased cost of each mile driven is worth it - or not. That's what a free market allows - choice.

Don't get me wrong - I would love it if gas were back at a buck a gallon, but even at $4 the freedom a private vehicle provides is simply unequaled in all of human history  - a trip that took 3 days a hundred years ago, now takes less than an hour. Amazing.

And freedom is the real issue.

Unfortunately, not everyone values personal liberty. Those who advocate European-style public transportation over private automobiles have always had a collectivist (dare I say Marxist?) bent. But their view is not the result of some deep desire for "efficiency" - the truth is that these people simply hate the freedom that a personal vehicle represents. The idea of mobs of people stuffed into buses and trains practically sends them into swoons of socialist euphoria.

Thus they demonize the very companies that have contributed to a level of personal freedom that has made America the envy of the world. They attack petroleum companies for "obscene" profits, despite the fact that the amount of money that an American oil company makes on a gallon of gas is...about a dime. The only reason the dollar figures for oil company profits are so large is that Americans consume 10,000 gallons of gas every second!

Dollar for dollar, Coca-Cola is TWICE as profitable as Exxon.

Meanwhile, after trying to figure out how to squeeze the last few pennies of taxes out of every gallon of gasoline, these nanny-state ninnies throw billions of tax-payer dollars at "Big Corn" in the form of ethanol subsidies - a policy that has failed to do anything other than drive world-wide food prices through the stratosphere.

As for me, I say "God Bless Exxon" - and every other American oil company. They've done far more for me than any Congressman, Senator, or President ever has. They've given me freedom.

So, if you want my vote, there is something you can do about "Big Oil" - you can get off their backs, and get out of their way.

Conservatives, being generally happy people, are often surprised at how many liberals seem to be so angry all the time. Just look at the Left's irrational hostility toward "the rich" - they practically drip with venom toward anyone who makes more money than they do (with the exception of left-wing Hollywood celebrities, that is). And nowhere is liberal animosity toward success more clearly on display than in their attitude toward "big" business - they hate corporate America. But much of this animus stems from the fact that liberals typically exhibit little understanding of economic realities, and virtually no concept of how the world of business and commerce actually works.

In casual conversation with your liberal friends, just mention (especially in admiring terms) some big oil company, an insurance company, or even better, a pharmaceutical company. You will get an immediate knee-jerk reaction, almost invariably accompanied by a litany of bumper-sticker slogans about "corporate greed" or how "big corporations only care about their shareholders." Now, the reality is that, by law, a corporation's primary fiduciary obligation is indeed to work in the best interests of their shareholders; they can go to jail if they don't (see ENRON). But that fact aside, this anti-business sentiment exposes some of the many false notions held by today's liberals, who will often talk about how "immoral" big business is.

But corporations (assuming they are not engaged in illegal activities, of course) are neither "moral" nor "immoral" - they are amoral. They exist exclusively to yield a profit to the owners (whether individuals, like "Joe the Plumber" or the millions of shareholders of EXXON), by producing products or services that PEOPLE WANT TO BUY. That's it. And that's enough. Conservatives know that people can decide for themselves what products they want, and from whom they will buy them. They don't need government to decide for them.

Liberals, however, have an entirely different (and distorted) view of commerce and business. They see business, just as they see government, as a vehicle for "social engineering." For example, liberals do not understand that someone starting a business doesn't do it in order to "create jobs" - they do it to make as much money as possible. Workers are merely a necessary expense in producing the products or services that the business wants to market, and a well-run company will employ as few workers as possible to achieve that end, and not one more.

Nor would any properly run business want to pay workers one dime more than their skills and experience are worth in a free labor market. To do otherwise is to turn your business into a charity. True, successful companies have learned to look for good, productive people, and to pay them well. But they do not act out of some misplaced sense of "social justice" (liberal code for Marxist redistribution of income). Smart companies pay their top workers well because they have learned that to do so is good for the long-term bottom line. Both the company and their good employees win (see Harvard Business Review: - "The Service Profit Chain").

Henry Ford is a good example. Liberals will often point to Ford as an "enlightened" business leader because he paid his workers above the prevailing wages of the day. But he did so, not out of altruism, but because it was ultimately profitable to the Ford Motor Company. Even revered American icons like Thomas Edison or Alexander Graham Bell worked tirelessly in their labs because they fully intended to produce a product they could ultimately sell - for a PROFIT.

Almost as important is that in a well-run company, bad employees are also weeded out. As they should be. Most liberals, especially those in government, have never had to make a payroll, so they believe that no one should ever be fired - they see employment, much as they see everything else, as a "right." But in the real world, no one "owes" you a job. No one "owes" you a particular salary or wage. Nor does any company "owe" you health insurance, or any other benefit. You are worth only what your skills, experience, and talents can command in a free marketplace.

Unions may have had a place in the last century, when it was possible for a corporation to control an entire town. But in today's mobile world, where a worker can go wherever the jobs are, unions do little other than to destroy free markets by extorting more money from a company than a worker is actually worth. They also prevent poor performing or unnecessary workers from being fired, which drives up costs to the consumer even further, until the company has no choice but to move overseas - think of all the industries that no longer exist in America.

Note also that when ever-increasing government regulations, out of control unions, and high taxes finally do force a company to move to another state, or out of the country, liberals naturally blame the company for "shipping jobs overseas." In spite of all the historical data that lay the blame for lost jobs at the feet of liberals, they never accept responsibility for the easily foreseeable results of their job-killing policies.

Liberals even express hatred for a hugely successful company like Wal-Mart, often vaguely accusing the retail giant of somehow "taking advantage" of the poor. But Wal-Mart is a company that has done more for America's poor and lower income citizens than all of the government social workers put together. Wal-Mart provides products that would otherwise be out of the reach of many Americans. Wal-Mart also employs people who would never get hired by many of the snooty "green" companies that liberals worship.

Now, if you don't happen to care for Wal-Mart for whatever reason, then fine, don't shop there. And if you don't like their pay or working conditions, don't work there. You have the freedom to make those choices. But that's not enough for liberals, who seem to think they have the right to demand that government interfere with private companies in order to force them to conform to their utopian (i.e. socialist) visions of "fairness."

One of the business sectors that really sends liberals into apoplexy is the pharmaceutical industry. Time and again you will hear some hand-wringing neo-socialist whining about the "outrageous cost of a pill," declaring that it isn't "fair" that they have to pay so much when they "need the drugs to survive." The irony that they would die without the research and development that led to the drug seems to be lost on them.

The average cost of a new drug is now almost a BILLION dollars, and the time to develop it is about 15 years. But liberals seem to think that after all of that time and money that was spent to bring them a new, life-saving drug, they are somehow "entitled" to have it for the price of six-pack of beer. They act as if the organization that invested that billion dollars shouldn't be able to even recoup their investment, let alone make a profit.

Speaking of profits, liberals will claim that they are not against profits, just "excessive" profits. But who are they to decide what "excessive" is? Besides, in the real world, there is no such thing as "excessive" profit - since no private business can force you to buy their products. Only government can do that, in the form of taxes. Yet liberals have no problem with "excessive" government "profits" - they don't let out a peep when the government makes 5 times as much "profit" on a gallon of gas as EXXON or BP does.  They love when the government "profits" in the form of income taxes - especially when it's those "evil rich" who are the one's paying them (50% of Americans now pay NO Federal Income Tax at all).

The truth is, liberals despise the entire concept of profit. The left-leaning news and entertainment media display this view constantly, often inserting anti-capitalism messages into TV programs that relentlessly decry the profit motive as something unseemly, if not downright evil.  Note how liberals who work for some "non-profit" organization will announce it with insufferable smugness, the implication being that those who work in the for-profit world of business are somehow morally inferior. The fact that most non-profits would not exist without massive charitable donations from "big business" is ignored. Without profits, non-profits wouldn't exist.

It has been the pursuit of profit that has yielded just about every major advancement in human history. From the industrial revolution to the information technology age, profit drives innovation. Profit, or more accurately, the desire for profit, encourages work. Profit rewards success. Profit creates wealth. Without the ability to profit from our own labors, no human progress would be possible. Profit, and the free enterprise capitalistic system that makes it possible, is the foundation of prosperity. Profit is good.

And drugs are no exception. If you remove the potential for profit, you will see research and development dry up. As government exerts more and more control over the health care arena, it's already happening. Admit it, you yourself wouldn't dream of committing to spending hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, to develop a new drug or treatment, if you knew it would likely be yanked from your hands as soon as it is released.

When it comes to anything related to medical care, and you cut through all their emotional rhetoric about people "dying because they didn't have insurance," you find that liberals are nothing more than socialists - they believe that they have a "right" to use the power of government to force someone else to pay their medical bills. Whether demanding government price controls on drugs, or expecting their health insurance to be paid for by their fellow taxpayers, liberals want everything for "free."

In the real world, however, nothing is "free" - everything carries a cost. And the more government is involved in what should be free markets, the greater the cost to all of us. The cost of health care today is directly related to the intrusion and negative influence of government that increases medical costs 40% just in terms of conforming to government mandates, processing mountains of paperwork, and practicing "defensive" medicine. Contrary to those who claim that "the free market has failed," the opposite is true - there hasn't been a free market in health care in 50 years. We have instead experienced ever increasing government interference, with skyrocketing costs as a direct result.

In reality, if both Federal and State governments were kicked out of the health care business, costs for most products and services would plummet. A perfect example is LAZIK eye surgery, a very serious medical procedure - after all, if they screw up, you could be blind. When it first came out a decade ago it cost $6,000 or more. Today, you can find ads in the Sunday paper that quote a price of $495. The reason is simple - LAZIK is the product of a genuinely free market. No government program is paying for it, so consumers do what they do for everything else they buy - they shop for the best price, and suppliers have to compete for their dollars. But when someone else is picking up the tab, why would anyone care about the cost?

Conservatives trust the public and the free market. They know that American free enterprise has created the most prosperous, economically powerful nation in history. Meanwhile, liberals believe in government, the bigger the better. I'm astonished at the number of liberals who actually trust a government worker more than they do a private sector worker. While they hate and fear "big business," liberals are absolutely in love with "big government" - in spite of the fact that government is an infinitely greater threat to their freedoms than any private business.

This is why, when the economy takes a hit, rather than let the market correct itself, liberals run to government for a "solution." But more government is never the solution - it more often simply makes things worse. Our current perilous economic situation is the direct result of years of increasing government involvement, repressive regulation, punitive taxation, and ever more reckless government spending, capped off by the Obama administration printing money by the truckload.

Unless and until America's liberals come to their senses, stop demonizing corporate America, and once again embrace the world of American free enterprise, our downward economic spiral will continue.

Unfortunately, I am not optimistic.

Unlike liberals, conservatives admit when their political opponents do something good. On media across the nation, those on the political right overwhelmingly expressed approval of President Obama's announcement of the killing of Osama Bin Laden by U.S. forces. After all, we all recall how President Clinton's hand-wringing dithering allowed Bin Laden to slip through our fingers on multiple occasions.

And, yes, President Obama missed a chance to strike a classy note by keeping his speech to a two or three minute "thank you" to all involved, rather than spending far too much time in self-congratulatory rhetoric about his role in the event. But, that's a minor issue. All things considered, kudos to the President for doing the right thing.

It is somewhat ironic that the intelligence that lead to the successful mission came from Guantanamo, the very detention center that the American Left, including the then-candidate Obama, demanded be closed. Thankfully, President Obama did not follow through on that particular campaign promise - upon assuming office, he likely had his eyes opened by military advisers who persuaded him of the strategic value of such a facility.

The end of Bin Laden is indeed great news, and it is right and just to applaud the President for authorizing the mission. We must also remember to congratulate the military intelligence officers who gathered the information and planned the operation. And our deepest gratitude goes out to the "boots on the ground" - the dedicated and courageous special operations military personnel who carried out the actual mission.

But we need to be careful that we do not delude ourselves into thinking that Bin Laden's death somehow heralds the end of terrorism. The battle against Islamic extremism is not over merely because the "poster boy" for Al Qaeda has been eliminated. Any more than the conviction and imprisonment of Al Capone ended organized crime - it persists today, larger and more insidious than ever.

It is equally misguided to see terrorism as the result of any single organization.  President Obama and other Democrats have often claimed that "Al Queda is the enemy"- as if this one group is the exclusive purveyor of hatred and violence against the West. Nothing could be further from the truth - terrorism is a world-wide phenomenon, and will not be ended with the destruction of any particular individual or group. And to believe otherwise is to invite disaster.

So let us celebrate the end of one of the most vicious mass murderers in recent history, and give credit to those who brought it about, including the President. But let us also be wary of attaching too much significance to Bin Laden's death. Because the ranks of Islamo-fascists are filled with up and coming jihadists, any one of whom would be only too eager to take Bin Laden's place.

The word "sustainable" has become a favorite term of the American Left. We hear about "sustainable" energy policy, "sustainable" transportation systems, "sustainable" growth, even "sustainable" communities. Now, sustainable is a perfectly good word, it's just that liberals misuse it egregiously - they never ask the question that any claim of "sustainability" requires, which is: "At what cost?"

Because, unless cost is considered, just about anything is "sustainable" - all you need to do is throw enough money at it (usually someone else's money, by the way). What are really needed are policies that are economically viable (i.e. SELF-sustaining). And when subjected to that test, almost every liberal policy gets a failing grade.

Take Ethanol ("Take it...PLEASE!" to paraphrase Henny Youngman). It requires more energy to produce a gallon of Ethanol than it contains. It is also inefficient - it reduces gas mileage by several miles per gallon. Finally, it is the epitome of UN-sustainability, because it is heavily subsidized by the tax payers - if it were priced according to it's actual cost, no one would buy it.

The same goes for most "alternative energy" programs - windmills, solar, etc. None of these projects would even exist without massive government subsidies, courtesy of the tax-payers (the 53% of Americans who actually pay taxes, that is). The only ones benefiting from such pie-in-the-sky projects are those in bed with the government, like G.E. which has reaped billions in government subsidies and tax credits for embracing "sustainable" technology.

Here in Minnesota, the big push is for "sustainable" transportation, which, in Liberal-speak, means PUBLIC transportation - never private vehicles. No surprise, because liberals hate automobiles - they much prefer to see their fellow citizens crammed into buses and trains. It is just so, well, "collectivist" - a concept near and dear to the hearts of American liberals.

But Minnesota, especially the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area, is not like London or New York, with their hub-and-spoke configurations. Instead, we have broadly spread-out city and suburban areas, where people may live in one suburb, and work across town in another suburb - only a small percentage of workers live in the outlying areas and commute to a "downtown" job. Thus, while bus routes might work for some inner city residents, most of our people want, and need, the flexibility of their personal automobiles.

Then again, liberals have never been known to let reason and logic get in the way of spending billions of tax-payer dollars on boondoggles like "light rail" and other such nonsense, no matter how economically unsound they turn out to be. And remember that NO light rail system anywhere in America has ever been able to survive without massive infusions of tax dollars.

But perhaps the most puzzling buzz-phrase is "sustainable communities" - what in heaven's name is that? Once again, the answer has nothing to do with building communities that are self-sustaining, an almost impossible concept to begin with anyway - no community, other than perhaps the Amish, could even come close to being truly self sustaining. We all need food, fuel, clothing, and numerous other goods that come from outside our communities, even from outside the country.

No, what liberals really mean by "sustainable communities" is a neo-socialist vision of a world where people are forced to live crammed together in inner cities, giving up their personal automobiles in favor of buses, trains, and (you knew it was coming) bicycles. No kidding, liberal Democrats have for years pushed bicycle lanes in downtown Minneapolis, and even actual bike paths in St. Paul, along with public service campaigns designed to persuade people to take a bike to work instead of a car.

Bicycles...in Minnesota...in January.

So the next time you hear some liberal spouting about "sustainable" this or "sustainable" that, just remind yourself that what they are really talking about has nothing to do with the real meaning of the word, and everything to do with taking away more of your personal freedoms. Government mandated light bulbs. Ethanol. Light rail. Electric cars. Wind farms. "Big Brother" thermostats in your own home. And on and on.

But it's all for the "greater good" you see...

President Obama's lackluster speech on America's budgetary woes was long on campaign cliches and short on substance. It featured the same tired, old "rob the rich" rhetoric that has become the hallmark of the Democrat Party. For at least the last forty years, Democrats have engaged in relentless attacks on everyone who dares to earn more than their fellow citizens.

Why? Because Democrats do not see taxes as a way of responsibly funding necessary government activities - instead, they view the tax code as a means of redistributing income. But in order to dole out money to people who didn't earn it, Democrats have to take money from those who actually did earn it. Which means they've had to create a strategy to make such policies palatable.

To get average Americans to go along with this legalized theft, Democrats first demonize those they intend to rob, thus making the average person feel less guilty about participating in the robbery. But Democrats have also concocted some amazingly deceptive language in order to disguise what they are actually doing. For example, they yammer on about the "cost of tax cuts" - as if NOT confiscating as much of your money as they did before is somehow an EXPENSE. As anyone who owns a business knows, this is absurd.

Not surprisingly, Obama attempted to play to his far-left base when he declared that he would not extend the so-called "Bush tax cuts" - claiming that the cuts "cost" a trillion dollars. Obama then referred to the home mortgage loan interest deduction as a "tax expenditure" -  an oxymoron if ever there was one - reducing someone's tax bill is not an "expense" in the mind of any sane person. But this kind of "thinking" is typical of socialists like Obama, who believe that it is the job of government to determine how much of your income you are "allowed" to keep. So any time you keep more of YOUR money, Democrats see it as "costing" THEM!

And like most liberals, President Obama displays a frightening lack of understanding of the dynamic nature of the nation's economy, and how it reacts to to changes in tax policy. Ask a liberal how much revenue will be collected next year if we raise a particular tax by, say, 10% and they will naively (and incorrectly) respond "it will go up by 10%"

But as any economist, or just an astute business owner, knows, when tax RATES are increased, there is an inevitable REDUCTION in economic activity, which is the primary determinant of total tax revenue received. So, not only will there almost certainly be an increase in revenue that is LESS than 10%, if the depressive effect on economic activity is dramatic enough, it may even result in a DECREASE in real dollars collected.

Conversely, cutting tax RATES has proven to result in an increase in economic growth, which naturally means GREATER revenues. This has happened time and again throughout the nation's history - JFK's tax cuts spurred economic growth, as did Ronald Reagan's. If you do not grasp this amazingly simple yet essential economic reality, you will likely fall prey to the budgetary sleight-of-hand that Obama and the Democrats are perpetrating on the nation. In fact, they are counting on your ignorance.

What Obama did NOT address was the real problem that we are facing: out-of-control spending financed by stratospheric debt. And unless and until we get serious about cutting spending, our situation will only worsen. But that will require that both Democrats and Republicans face up to the fact that we need to be talking about TRILLIONS in cuts, not the embarrassingly tiny (less than a fraction of 1 percent) and ultimately inconsequential numbers currently on the table.

Obama's speech shows that he has not the slightest intention of abandoning his big government socialist agenda, including the continual attacks on "the rich." Sadly, while the "young guns" like Paul Ryan are attempting to face up to the challenge, too many of the "Old Guard" Republicans still seem to lack the testicular fortitude to make the kinds of dramatic changes that are necessary to save our nation.

Listening to the chattering class go apoplectic over the potential presidential candidacy of flamboyant real estate mogul Donald Trump is fascinating. No sooner had "the Donald" mentioned the possibility of running against Barak Obama than the annoying little media gnats began buzzing madly:

"But, he's declared bankruptcy!"

"He ran a casino into the ground!"

"He's too confrontational - he rubs people the wrong way!"

Lost in all of the criticism of Trump's "failures" is the plain and simple fact that winners are those who take risks, and taking chances always brings the possibility of failure. As a wise old baseball coach once said: "Top home run hitters strike out more than anyone else - if you're afraid to swing and miss, you'll never be a Babe Ruth."

And that's the primary difference. Trump swings for the fences. Obama waits for a base on balls. Trump has taken huge financial risks his whole life, while Obama built his entire political career on voting "present" - playing it safe. Trump is a man of action. Obama is a man of "let's see what the polls indicate." Say what you will about Trump, his life is an open book, and he has a real history of success. Obama's can't even produce his college transcripts, and his only "successes" have been in winning elections in Illinois, which were often clouded with charges of backroom chicanery and fraud. Obama is not only the least experienced president in U.S. history, he has virtually no private sector background whatsoever.

Another thing that Donald Trump would bring to the office is his view of America, one that differs dramatically from that of the ever obsequious Obama, who never misses an opportunity to apologize for America's power and success. Trump recognizes the exceptional opportunity that the American free enterprise system provides, for everyone. Obama wants to "spread the wealth around" - but other people's wealth, never his own.

Moreover, Trump can articulate his views better than any president since Ronald Reagan, and he can do it impromptu - he doesn't need notes. Those of us in the communications field groan with agony when some media sycophant describes Obama as "a great orator" - what drivel. Obama reads a teleprompter - and usually words written by someone else. Whenever he steps outside the safety of a carefully crafted speech, Obama stammers and stumbles, filling his sentences with "ums" and "uhs" and otherwise floundering.

In a face to face debate, Donald Trump would eviscerate Barak Obama - Trumps knowledge of business, economics, and negotiating in the real world would bring Obama's razor thin resume into embarrassingly clear focus. Hint: Recall Trump's testimony in 2005 on renovating the U.N. building - his experience and grasp of the economic reality of the project was so far above theirs as to make them look like utter fools.

In the area of international relations, Trump has made it clear that America's interests would come first. Oh, sure, Trump's focus on Obama's birth certificate during his recent conversation with Today Show host Meredith Vieira was criticized, even by conservatives. But the real "money line" during that interview was when Trump noted that in the world today, America is being laughed at, then promised that "when I am president, they won't be laughing anymore." And he's probably right.

I have no idea if Donald Trump is seriously considering running for the presidency - that remains to be seen. But I do know that ANY flaws that Trump has pale in comparison to Barak Obama's, with his utter lack of experience and total mishandling of the nation's economic problems. When you consider Obama's anti-oil, anti-coal, anti-nuclear, anti-free-enterprise energy policy, combined with his blatantly socialist approach of having big central government taking ever more control over every aspect of our lives, the only real question is:

How could Donald Trump be any worse than the rank amateur we have now?

If you ever wanted a textbook example of why the Democratic Party should be consigned to permanent minority status in America, you need look no further than my former home state, Illinois. I was born in Chicago, but like many who grew up in the "Land of Lincoln" I finally had enough of the corrupt government unions, the out or control spending, crushing taxes, violent crime, and the infringements on personal liberty, So in 1995 I left. And millions more have left since.

Yet the corrupt Democratic Machine rolls along unscathed. When Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's former personal thug, declared that he would be the Democratic candidate for Mayor of Chicago, the outcome of the election was virtually a foregone conclusion.

Despite decades of social welfare policies that have destroyed the black family structure, I knew that Chicago's African-American population would dutifully line up and vote 98% for "the Democrat" - as they nearly always do. The government unions, especially the teachers and the infamous SEIU, would do the same. And I had no doubt that within half an hour of Emanuel's announcement, Democrat Party apparatchiks would be filling out stacks of ballots for him in dusty back rooms across the city - long before election day.

Last year, Republican Roger Keats ran for President of the Cook County Board - no surprise, he lost. For him, it was the last straw, and he sums up Chicago's problems, and his reasons for leaving, in a public letter which follows:

GOOD BYE AND GOOD LUCK

As we leave Illinois for good, I wanted to say goodbye to my friends and wish all of you well.  I am a lifelong son of the heartland and proud of it. After 60 years, I leave Illinois with a heavy heart.  BUT enough is enough! The leaders of Illinois refuse to see we can’t continue going in the direction we are and expect people who have options to stay here. I remember when Illinois had 25 congressmen. In 2012 we will have 18. Compared to the rest of the country we have lost 1/4rd of our population. Don’t blame the weather, because I love 4 seasons.

Illinois is ranked 50th  for fiscal policy; 47th in job creation; 1st in unfunded pension liabilities; 2nd largest budget deficit; 1st in failing schools; 1st  in bonded indebtedness; highest sales tax in the nation; most judges indicted (Operations Greylord and Gambat); and 5 of our last 9 elected number of governors have been indicted. That is more than the other 49 states put together! Then add 32 Chicago Aldermen and (according to the Chicago Tribune) over 1000 state and municipal employees indicted. The corruption tax is a real cost of doing business. We are the butt of jokes for stand up comics.

We live in the most corrupt big city, in the most corrupt big county in the most corrupt state in America. I am sick and tired of subsidizing crooks. A day rarely passes without an article about the corruption and incompetence. Chicago even got caught rigging the tests to hire police and fire! Our Crook County CORPORATE property tax system is intentionally corrupt. The Democrat State Chairman who is also the Speaker of the Illinois House and the most senior alderman in Chicago each make well over a million dollars a year putting the fix in for their client’s tax assessments.

We are moving to Texas where there is no income tax while Illinois’ just went up 67%. Texas’ sales tax is ½ of ours, which is the highest in the nation. Southern states are supportive of job producers, tax payers and folks who offer opportunities to their residents. Illinois shakes them down for every penny that can be extorted from them.

In the Hill Country of Texas (near Austin and San Antonio) we bought a gracious home on almost 2 acres with a swimming pool. I is new, cost us around 40% of what our home in Wilmette just sold for, and the property taxes are a third of what they are here. Crook County’s property tax system is a disaster: Wilmette homes near ours sell for 50% more and their property taxes are ½ of ours. Our assessed home value was 50% higher than the sales price. The system is unfair and incompetent.

Our home value is down 40%, our property taxes are up 20% and our local schools have still another referendum on the ballot to increase taxes over 20% in one year. I could go on, but enough is enough. I feel as if we are standing on the deck of the Titanic and I can see the icebergs right in front of us. I will miss our friends a great deal. I have called Illinois home for essentially my entire life. But it is time to go where there is honest, competent and cost effective government. We have chosen to vote with our feet and our wallets. My best to all of you and Good luck!

The fear-mongering that has become a hallmark of the American media was on full display these past weeks, as talking heads did everything but appear in Haz-Mat suits to convey the seriousness of the "nuclear incident" in Japan. It was almost as if the 9.0 earthquake and Tsunami, which caused thousands of deaths and produced massive devastation, was suddenly put on the back burner, as one "expert" after another (furrowed brow required) somberly ruminated on all of the dire consequences that "could" occur from the damage to the area's nuclear power stations.

Meltdowns! Radioactive clouds! Stock up on iodine pills! For example, take a gander at this little story from Reuters that appeared just today:

"World Health Organization warns of 'serious' food radiation in disaster-hit Japan"

You may read the full article at:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/wl_nm/us_japan_quake

Note that you can search the entire story without finding any mention of actual radiation readings, or, more importantly, how they compare with normal radiation from say, flying on an airplane or sun-bathing. Nope. Not a one. But what you will find are comparisons to Chernobyl:

"The few measurements of radiation reported in food so far are much lower than around Chernobyl in 1986, but the full picture is still emerging," Malcolm Crick, secretary of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, told Reuters.

But how much lower than "around Chernobyl" they don't say. But hey, who cares? Because the mere mention of the oh-so-scary word "Chernobyl" and "food" in the same sentence is enough to guarantee that a story will be gobbled up by the grossly uninformed, and often intentionally misinformed (see: "MSNBC") public.

The reality is that while some radiation has been detected, none of their dooms-day scenarios has actually occurred, at least not yer. But this has been all but ignored, despite the fact that genuine nuclear experts like Ron Ballard of MIT explained that "we can't have a Chernobyl-like situation. The system is designed so that as long as we keep water in there to keep it cool, nothing will happen." Even when asked specifically if Fukushima would result in a "disaster," Ballard said "It might be a financial disaster, but no member of the public has been hurt, and I doubt anybody will be."

And he is not alone - those who actually understand the containment procedures in place at most nuclear facilities around the world agree that, while the Fukushima reactor situation is a problem, panic is not warranted. But such sober and reasoned voices are invariably drowned out by the endless parade of anti-nuclear activists masquerading as "experts" - whose "credentials" turn out to be nothing more than a history of opposing all things nuclear. Because in the world of the media, especially radio and TV news, any story with the word "nuclear" in it must invariably include hand-wringing hyperbole.

Now, sensationalism is nothing new in the media - remember the old adage, "If if bleeds it leads." But it is now getting to the point where one should add, "and if there isn't any blood, throw some on it."

Look at the evening weather on any local TV station. If a storm is gathering off the coast of Florida, the words "tropical storm" and "hurricane" will somehow be worked into the story. You might remember how, after Katrina in 2005, all the "experts" direly predicted "record numbers of hurricanes" for the following year, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

"NOAA PREDICTS VERY ACTIVE 2006 NORTH ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON
Residents in Hurricane Prone Areas Urged to Make Preparations - May 22, 2006"

Alas, how disappointed they were when the 2006 hurricane season turned out to be barely a lamb, let alone a lion. Yet none of those who bungled the predictions were the least bit forthcoming in admitting their errors:

"NOAA has yet to issue its final seasonal summary for 2006, but one thing is clear – NOAA’s predictions for the 2006 hurricane season were way off. During the 2006 hurricane season there were only nine named-storms, five hurricanes, and two major hurricanes – none of which hit the U.S." - November 30, 2006

Then there was the BP Oil rig explosion and spill. If you listened to the hysterical news coverage, it signaled "the end of the Louisiana shrimp and fishing industry." Others declared that "the devastation of the eco-system of the Gulf would take decades to restore." Still others predicted that cities on the West Coast of Florida would become "ghost towns." How embarrassing when less than two years after the BP incident, real scientists reported that most of the oil spill had dissipated, "almost miraculously." Seems Mother Nature was a bit more capable of doing her job than the journalists were of doing theirs.

And it doesn't stop there. We all know that hysteria sells, but politics also has a great deal to do with which particular issues the media covers, and more importantly, how they report them.

For example, in the crusade against the mythical "threat" of "global warming" (oops, I mean, "climate change") the media's persistent refusal to pay attention to real climate and geological experts has been well documented. They prefer the "end of the world as we know it" prognostications of "experts" whose real goal is the elimination of "fossil" fuels. Everyone seems to forget that 30 years ago these same "experts" were hysterically predicting global COOLING - the covers of major news magazines warned of "the coming Ice Age." Not surprisingly, the "solutions" to "global cooling" back then and "global warming" today are the same - drastically curtail the use of energy by America.

Then there is the war on "second hand smoke" - in spite of all the evidence debunking the claim. There has been study after study by real scientists over several decades, from OSHA to the World Health Organization. They have all come to the conclusion that there is no verifiable correlation, let alone causation, between exposure to so-called second-hand smoke and ANY increase in heart disease or lung cancer. Even those who spend an entire life-time in the same house with a two-pack-a-day smoker show only statistically insignificant increases in their cancer rates. Then again, the mainstream media has never let scientific fact get in the way of a good story. Especially when  the facts threaten a political agenda popular with the American Left.

Remember all the hype about microwave ovens? Every week, another "expert" was warning of the "risk"of even standing in front of a microwave. I personally remember many people who actually believed that microwaves "did something" to the food - and no amount of fact or reason would assuage their (groundless) fears. It took more than twenty years before the public finally got comfortable with the microwave oven. Now just about everyone in the nation has one.

Then there is the "irradiation" of food - an almost miraculously simple and effective way to eliminate all harmful bacteria from food, especially fresh meat. No other method kills 100% of germs (as irradiating does). And no, Virginia, irradiating food does NOTHING harmful. The waves of radiation past harmlessly through the food, killing bacteria, but leaving NO residual radiation.

NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

As a matter of fact, you've almost certainly already consumed irradiated food - black pepper, as well as other foods, has been irradiated for more than 60 years. But thanks to media hysteria, who exploit the average persons irrational fears of things they don't understand, even today many people remain terrified at the mere mention of "irradiated" food. The result is that thousands of people get unnecessarily sick every year - some even die. But no matter - irrational hysteria sells.

Yet while media types are all too willing to jump headlong into hysteria promoting coverage of threats that either don't exist (or at least, do not yet exist) these same people seem incredibly reluctant to say anything about what are arguably far more REAL threats to the average American. They either downplay, or avoid highlighting things like Islamic Terrorism, America's $14 TRILLION dollar debt, soaring food and fuel prices, and crashing home prices.

Naturally, it is even more important for the media to stay as far as possible from such problems when the President is a Democrat. Note that when gasoline was nearly $4 a gallon and George Bush was President, the press ran 15 TIMES as many stories on gas prices as they do on $4 a gallon gas today, with Barak Obama in the Whitehouse. Because for the disproportionately liberal press, to highlight the genuine threats facing Americans today would also require them to expose the forces that have contributed to them - which in almost every case is decades of misguided and destructive liberal (read Democrat) policies.

And that the mainstream media simply cannot abide.

I am continually surprised at the lack of understanding exhibited by liberals and conservatives alike when it comes to the issue of oil prices. Even putatively educated people seem to lose all common sense amidst wailing and gnashing of teeth over perceived "gouging" of the public (note: there is no such thing as "gouging" in the free market - only government can force you to buy anything. More on this later).

But the oil business is not all that complicated. Crude oil is the basis for the many fuels we use - gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, home heating oil, etc. Oil is also the raw material needed to produce a myriad of the products that we all use every day, like plastics, tires, synthetic fabrics, and so on. Oil, like energy, is largely responsible for our standard of living, which is the envy of the world.

Oil is a worldwide commodity - and one that is used by every modern nation on earth, and thus oil pricing is determined primarily by total demand and total supply. Demand goes up, prices rise. Demand falls (as it does during times of economic downturns), and the price goes down. Ditto with supply - something happens to dramatically increase or decrease the supply, prices change accordingly. Most people get that.

But there is another important influence on the price of oil that many forget - the need of oil producing nations to SELL their oil. After all, if the world suddenly stopped buying oil from, say, Saudi Arabia, their economy would collapse - oil is their mainstay. Thus there is a constant push and pull by the big oil producers like Venezuela and the Saudis to produce enough oil to keep their economies going, but not flood the market with oil so that the price falls below the level they need to make a minimal profit (somewhere around $40 to $60 a barrel, depending on the country). Likewise they don't want to restrict the supply so much that prices go too high.

But why would OPEC be concerned about oil prices being too high? Well, it's not because they're nice guys - it's just good business. Because when oil rises to levels of around $140 or more it results in recessionary pressures on the world's economies, which causes demand to fall. When this happens, the oil producing nations make big profits PER BARREL, but because they are selling fewer barrels, they can end up with less total REVENUE. If this were not true, then OPEC would simply price oil at $200 or even $300 a barrel, and leave it at that. But they don't - because they can't. They need to keep the oil flowing.

Another factor that affects oil prices is the stability of the governments of the big oil producing countries. You may have noticed how even minor political tremors in oil producing nations cause immediate reactions in the oil futures markets, as well as prices today. This perplexes even very smart people, who demand to know "how can oil prices (or gas at the pump) jump up in one day when there has been no real change in supply?" But what these people fail to understand is that the biggest cause of changes in prices of any commodity is not what is happening today, but rather what the AFFECT is liable to be in the FUTURE.

The main reason that industry has an obvious interest in future trends is that every business needs one thing above all else: predictability. Thus all big users of oil-based products seek ways to protect themselves from unforeseen changes in their costs - a sharp up-tick in the cost of their raw materials can make their products uncompetitive, or, in the worst case, drive them to bankruptcy. One of the ways that businesses ensure predictability is to agree to a price TODAY in a contract for delivery at a FUTURE date.

For example, an airline cannot possibly determine what prices they will have to charge for their tickets next year, if they have no idea what their fuel costs will be AT THAT TIME. So they contract today to buy jet fuel that will be delivered in, say, June of 2012. Now, the price of that contract will be based on the EXPECTED price at the time of delivery, not on the current price. Both the buyer (the Airline) and the seller (the fuel provider) will look at the oil FUTURES market to decide on a price that is acceptable to both of them in terms of RISK. Because MANAGING RISK is what all "speculation" is actually about.

By the way, in the above example, both the airline and the fuel supplier are (yep, you guessed it) SPECULATORS. the airline is betting that the price will go above the price they got today, and the seller is betting that the fuel price AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY will be no higher than the price they agreed to in the contract. Heck, if you still have half a tank of gas, but stop in to fill up because you're afraid the price might be 5 cents higher tomorrow, YOU too are "speculating" - just as you are a "speculator" if you've bought gold or silver lately. (Or if you bought a house a few years ago, hoping to "flip" it. How'd THAT work out for you?)

But what about those who only act as intermediaries in the transaction - the "brokers" of oil, gasoline, jet fuel and other such commodities? Well, they are no different than commodity brokers who buy and sell futures contracts for pork bellies, orange juice, corn, wheat, sugar and just about everything else we consume. They are not the "greedy financial types" portrayed by the media talking heads - they simply fill a need. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist - that's how free markets work.

What third party speculators actually do is to contractually take on the risk for both the buyer and the seller. If they guess right, the buyer gets the commodity at the price they agreed to pay for it, the commodity producer got the price they accepted, and the broker made a profit on the difference between what the buyer agreed to pay them and what the broker will have to pay the producer for the commodity AT THE TIME OF FULFILLMENT.

The press of course blames the "speculators" for "artificially" raising prices by "trading paper" - but the press leaves out the fact that if the "speculators" are wrong, they stand to lose a lot of money. And they often do guess wrong. But more importantly, in the real world of markets and business, there is no such thing as an "artificial" price, because in every case, BOTH PARTIES AGREED TO THE CONTRACT. If the bottom falls out of the market by the time the contract comes do, that was the result of the financial decision they made, rather than rely on blind luck, or hope that the price of oil (or bananas, or sugar, etc.) declines by the time you have to purchase the commodity.

Likewise, suggestions (oddly, by both liberals and conservatives) that the American government should somehow "regulate" so-called speculation are dangerously misguided - futures trading would continue everywhere else in the world anyway. But the larger issue is that to regulate such things always results in disastrous consequences. Price controls ALWAYS result in shortages.

By the way, there is no such thing as "gouging" in the private sector. If a hardware store in Florida prices a flashlight at $20 the day after a hurricane hits, you don't have to buy it. But if you failed to take the simple step of buying one BEFORE the hurricane (when it was only $1.98) you have no business whining to the rest of us who had the good sense to prepare in advance. Because the VALUE of any product is determined by how badly you want it, AT THAT TIME. How much is a gallon of water worth? Well, if you were trudging though the Sahara desert, it would likely be worth a lot more to you than it would be to an ice fisherman in Minnesota.

So you may not like paying $4 or more for a gallon of gas, but would you rather have all the gas you want at $4 a gallon, or pay a little less, but be limited to "X" gallons a week? Or you can ride your bike to work. Or walk. Your choice. Now, you may not like the choices you have, but you do have them. Because no one can "force" you to buy their products - only government has the power to do that. Public school funding is a perfect example - even if you do not use the school system because you have no children, you are forced to pay.

But no matter how expensive anything gets, price controls are never the answer, because the result is always the same - shortages. Because commodities will always follow the best prices. If America ever instituted government price controls on oil, we would find ourselves with a shortage that would make the gas lines of the Carter years seem tame by comparison.

Finally, the single biggest threat to oil prices today is the looming possibility of the American dollar losing its status as the world's reserve currency - and oil prices are currently traded in U.S. dollars. But with our skyrocketing national debt, and the reckless printing of money by the government (to pay for out of control spending), the real possibility exists for the U.S. dollar to be replaced by the Euro, or even more likely, the Chinese Yuan, and soon. And if that happens, it will without question cause a drastic devaluation of our currency - in which case we could very well be looking at $200 or more for a barrel for oil, and $10 a gallon for gas. Disturbingly, Obama and more than a few of his advisers have openly supported such high gas prices - in order to advance their "green" agenda.

No one owes you cheap gas for your car, or cheap oil to heat your home. We can, however, do things as a nation that make the situation better...or worse. And since we cannot do much to control the likes of Jugo Chavez or the Saudis, the only way to ensure that we can meet our present (and future) energy needs is to immediately (and drastically) cut government spending, stop printing truckloads of paper money, reduce the national debt, repeal the stacks of insane energy limitations we have placed on ourselves, and proceed at (excuse the metaphor) full throttle with drilling, refining, and exploration on every square inch of land and sea that is within our control.

There is no magic to the price of gas. At $3.89 a gallon, about where prices are today (or soon will be) the components break down approximately as follows:

$2.64 - Cost of Crude Oil

$0.48 - Taxes (and up to $0.68 in some states like Hawaii)

$0.33 – Refining

$0.30 - Distribution/Marketing/Retail Cost of operation

$0.09 - Profit to Refiner (EXXON, BP, etc.)

$0.05 - Profit to gasoline retailer (BP, Shell, EXXON, S/A, Holiday, Kwik-Trip, etc.)

Obviously, the oil necessary to produce gasoline is the biggest cost item. But where does the oil come from? Most people would immediately think of large, multinational corporations like EXXON/MOBIL, BP, Shell, and others. But they would be only partially correct. The reality is that less than a third of the world's oil comes from so-called "Big Oil" - the vast majority comes from hundreds of small, independent outfits with fewer than 100 employees.

Adding to the confusion is that the term "oil company" can mean some very different things. Most people think of EXXON, Shell, BP and others - names they see on the gas stations in their own neighborhoods. But while they do indeed "drill for oil" many of these companies are also major gasoline retailers, and are therefore huge CONSUMERS of oil.

Meanwhile, many major producers of oil are not private, for-profit companies, but are in fact government owned entities like Venezuela's "Petroleos de Venezuela" (PDVSA) or ARAMCO of Saudi Arabia. These organizations SELL crude oil to gasoline refiners/retailers (like EXXON and BP), as well as to tire companies, plastics producers, and other manufacturers of petroleum-based products. (Note: these oil-consuming manufacturers are many of the same companies that are unjustly demonized as "speculators" for simply attempting to lock in their costs in advance of potentially rising prices. But that's a story for another day).

Thus, contrary to popular perception, when oil prices are high, it does not benefit the refiners/retailers (like EXXON, BP, etc.) - in fact, high oil prices result in SMALLER profit margins. Why? Because oil prices are to a gasoline refiner/marketer what wheat or corn prices are to a cereal producer/marketer like General Mills.

When the cost of the "raw material" used to make ANY product goes up, retail prices may rise but margins shrink. For example, in 2007, when gasoline averaged less than $3.00 a gallon, EXXON made a net profit of 10.8%, but when gas was $4.00 a gallon in 2008, their net profits DROPPED to 10.6%. Note that this is EXXON's profit on ALL operations - gasoline is one of the least profitable products, generating less than 9 cents a gallon.

Now, naturally, the mainstream press touted the “huge increase in oil company profits” in 2008. But what they failed to point out is that while EXXON made LESS on each gallon of gasoline they sold (around 8 cents), they sold MORE TOTAL GALLONS (due to huge increases in demand worldwide - Americans alone burn 10,000 gallons of gasoline EVERY SECOND). So of course the total profits in dollars went up, but the net profit percentage fell.

And for those who advocate “the government” controlling gasoline prices, a lesson in basic economics might be useful. Just ask yourself this question: If you were a gasoline refiner/distributor, and it cost you approximately $3.75 to refine and distribute a gallon of gas, and the U.S. government were to set the maximum pump price at, say, $2.50, how much gasoline would you produce for use in the United States?

Answer: Zero.

Because the cold harsh reality is that gasoline (just like oil) is a WORLD commodity - and no matter where it comes from, the price will be set by the world market. And NO commodity will go where the cost exceeds the price - it will go elsewhere, or cease being produced altogether.

It took decades of destructive and misguided liberal policies to get us where we are today: no new gasoline refineries in 30 years, no new nuclear generators since the 1970s, blocking the use of our huge reserves of coal, the incredibly disastrous burning of our corn for fuel (Ethanol) which not only reduces your car's mileage, it has pushed food prices through the roof. Then there are the mountain of silly "green" initiatives to combat a mythical threat (global warming). All of these policies should be reversed.

But the bottom line is that in the short term it is simply insane for America NOT to drill everywhere we can, as fast as we can. Especially since the rest of the world is already doing exactly that - some of them right in our own back yard.